Re: Someone who has been to war, regardless of party
 

They volunteered for the army and all possible wars.

-Rudey
--And I don't do poor English universities.

You obviously don't know how to read.

Re-read my original post. I mean, seriously READ it...for what it really says and not for what you think I'm saying. I don't understand where you're missing my reasoning. It's all right there in the original post.

Sorry AlphaGamDiva for hijacking your thread. It was a good question. Too bad I don't know how to think or I might be able to give an intelligent answer. :confused:

You don't make sense.

When asked your reasoning since you don't make sense, you tell me you don't have to provide your reasoning.

Now you claim you had reasoning and provided it.

-Rudey
--Like a half eaten Mars bar

The GOP can FUBAR an international situation just as much as Dems. Neither party has ever had an anti-war platform.

Most adults I know felt safer during Iraq War I, but GHWB was a lot more capable than his son.

I would feel safer with a Democrat. I think they would be likely not be over agressive and make things worse and more people join in against us.

What I said was I don't have to justify my opinions to you. Then the next line below that (in the very same post) I said there are other ways to get Osama without having to go to war. I said "There is more than one way to skin a cat." Whatever. If you don't like what I have to say then don't comment on it.

I don't feel safe with Bush in office at all. Regarding the WMD in Iraq and hunting down Sadaam, I think he either relied on false information, which means he's incompetent, or he lied to the country, which is dishonest. Neither of those are traits I think the leader of our country should possess. I think going after Osama (and whoever else was involved in 9-11) was about 1000 times more important than going after Sadaam.

What has Bush or his administration done to improve our country's protection since 9-11? We installed a terror alert system. No one I know pays any attention to that thing anyways because it's stupid. It's just Bush and his butt-monkeys sitting in Washington crying wolf all the time.

I also didn't agree with the way we starting invading Afghanistan shortly after 9-11. War is not the answer. I'm sorry, but that's what I think. War doesn't make me feel safe, whether there's a Democrat or a Republican in office. What was the result of those actions? We now have a country that hates us more than they already did, we pissed off other countries in the process, and we didn't find what we were looking for. There still has been no retribution for what was done to our country on 9-11. There never will be as long as Dubya is in office.

Another reason I don't feel safe is because it seems like Bush is running around waging war and blowing up whoever he feels like. What prevents another country from following his example and attacking us because they heard we're building anti-stupidity missiles? It's almost like he's inviting another country to wage war on us -- just so the next time he drops a bomb it will be justified. Oh wait...I forgot...he was justified for invading Iraq because they have all those WMDs. There's the retardation kicking in again. Forgive me.

It would be interesting to me to see how many wars were started by Democrats vs. Republicans. I can't remember offhand or even if I ever learned such a statistic, but maybe the reason the country feels safer with a Republican in the office during wartime is because a majority of the time the war was started BY the Republican in office. I don't know, just a thought.

And Rudey, if you consider a lost cause someone that doesn't agree with anything you say, then you should have gotten that clue and walked away a long time ago buddy. Sorry to waste your time.

WWI: Wilson (Democrat)
WWII: FDR (Democrat)
Korea: Truman (Democrat)
Vietnam: Kennedy (Democrat) (depending on your idea of "started")
Desert Storm: Bush the Elder (Republican)

Nice try.

I can take a poll of the DC cabdrivers that I ride with in the coming days. I don't know how cabdrivers are in Kentucky (do you have cabs in Kentucky), but in DC they don't hesitate to give their opinion on whatever is on their minds that day. Of course, carrying lobbyists and lawmakers, they probably figure every once in awhile their point of view might be taken seriously.

I just thought it was an extremely random conversation/lecture that I got from this man about 16 months after 9/11.

Like I said, it was just a thought. :D

Maybe that's why people feel safer with the Republicans then, because they aren't the ones going around starting the majority of the wars. I don't know. I would think that most people are probably going to base the answer to this question on their political affiliation.

As I mentioned in my original post, I don't have much experience of being around with all these wars going on. I base my preference only on what I know. I don't think I could sit here and say that I agree or disagree with what went on in, for example, Vietnam, because I wasn't alive during that time and I didn't experience a lot of the things most of the people did then. What you learn in history class is not necessarily the same as being there and experiencing it.

I know that I have a pretty strong opinion about the recent war, and since it was started by a Republican, I don't feel safe with a Republican in office.

ETA: If I had been alive during Vietnam, I probably would have been out there with the best of them, protesting the war. As I mentioned, I do not believe in war. And if a Democrat were in office right now, and they had started this war, I would be screaming for a replacement. Although the replacement would have to be another Democrat, of course. ;)

no, i agree that it is a random conversation.....all i'm saying (in response to the cab driver's thoughts) is what i put in my last post. are we supposed to elect someone who is going to be liked by Middle Eastern peoples/leaders? someone who is going to express concern but not do anything about it? hell, let's just let Middle Eastern countries vote in november.....maybe then they'll be happy.

i think no matter who was president, what happened on 9/11 would've still occured. i think things would have gone differently had gore been president at the time......but i don't think gore being in the presidential role would've been the deciding factor of 1000s of ppl's demise. the attack was against America, not bush. sure, saddam, osama, etc hate the bush family.....but again, think why they do. b/c of papa bush and iraq war #1....and they knew that baby bush would probably attempt to put a stop to their crimes as well. when clinton was elected, saddam celebrated.....he celebrated.....think about that. :eek:

and yes, we have cabs in kentucky. we also have shoes. who'd a thunk? :rolleyes:

Actually, I would argue it this way.

WWI: Kaiser Wilhelm
WWII: Adolph Hitler and Emperor Tojo
Korea: Can't remember who was running N. Korea Then
Vietnam: Eisenhower/Kennedy -- one of each, but they were dumb enough to inherit it from the French.
Desert Storm: Saddam when he invaded Kuwait.

Yes and legally the war in iraq never ended.

-Rudey

I think that history will look kindly upon GHWB. Assembling that coalition was a typr of political genius that is so rare, that it is almost mythological.

Ahem... some corrections are necessary above.

WWI: Kaiser Wilhelm II, along with the Austro-Hungrarian Empire and a few other "interlocking alliances".

WWII: Hideki Tojo was Prime and War Minister during the war. Emperor Showa (Hirohito when he was still alive) was the head of state. While Hirohito was largely a figurehead, many reports have surfaced that he was more invollved in the conduct of the war than once thought. Tojo got strung up after the war; the Emperor Showa continued his reign until the mid-1980s.

Korea: Kim Jong Il's daddy, Kim Il Sung (with more than a little prodding behind the scenes by ol' "Joe [the man of] Steel" (Josef Vissarionovich Dzugashvili, aka Josef Stalin) and Mao Tse Tung (or more familiar in the current Chinese spelling as Mao Zedong).

Vietnam: Nguyen Ai Quoc, better known by his nom de guerre Ho Chi Minh. And yes, we inherited the clusterf*ck from the Froggies.

Gulf War I and II - Saddam al-Hussein al-Tikriti. Rudey's right about the war in I-rack never ending - it was a violation of the terms of the terms of the cease fire and of UN resolutions.